Interesting discussion. Interesting mainly because I think Aussie has proven himself the best at "out-FDing" FD. Its good how once in a while FD gets a taste of how annoying his style of debating can be. If anyone's interested in a sample - here's FD attempting to argue how a pro-democracy rally must really be anti-democracy. From about half way down page 6 onwards:http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1390857768.

Its uncanny how similar Aussie and FD actually are.

Also this is a stupid semantic argument. You are both right, and both wrong. He was gaoled for contempt of court because he refused to desist from denying the holocaust. Its not one or the other, its both. Semantically, 'contempt of court' can be cited as the "real" reason without attributing any blame to his original act (denying the holocaust), but it doesn't pass the common sense test. Similarly, it is wrong to say he was only gaoled for the act of denying the holocaust without acknowledging contempt of court in and of itself a sufficient reason for incarceration (irrespective of the origin of the contempt).

Its just silly semantics, and everyone should all just settle for "he was gaoled for contempt of court - which came about because of his refusal to desist from denying the holocaust". Since while ever FD insists on leaving out 'contempt of court' in his interpretation of the reason he was gaoled, Aussie will simply cite the court transcript referring to the contempt - ad infinitum till the cows come home.

.....which came about because of his refusal to desist from denying the holocaust".

......You will believe what we tell you or you are going to jail????

Very authoritarian. So much for free thought and opinion. So now people feel they have a right to mould others brains. Now that is absolute power!!!

1) Aussie claimed Toben was not jailed for denying the holocaust, blatant lie, scurrilous etc. I did not make any of the opposite "semantic" arguments you attributed to me.

2) The whole point of Aussie's apologetics, as well as the other flavours of apologetics from John Smith, Barnacle, Brian Ross etc (see opening post) is to distance 18c from the jailing of Toben by insisting the jailing of Toben has no freedom of speech implications. John Smith had a rather stupid suggestion that we respond by trying to get rid of contempt of court legislation rather than 18c (again, see the opening post for quotes). Does that seem like a purely semantic argument to you? Or just a particularly stupid one, intended to facilitate the erosion of freedom of speech?

This is why Aussie will not answer simple questions like what was the cause of the court order, because the answer would destroy the real (ie, not just semantic) argument he is making. You are falsely projecting intelligence onto what they are saying, but it really is that stupid. They really do think (or wish to argue, in defence of 18c) that Toben's jailing had nothing to do with 18c and freedom of speech.

Interesting discussion. Interesting mainly because I think Aussie has proven himself the best at "out-FDing" FD. Its good how once in a while FD gets a taste of how annoying his style of debating can be. If anyone's interested in a sample - here's FD attempting to argue how a pro-democracy rally must really be anti-democracy. From about half way down page 6 onwards:http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1390857768.

Its uncanny how similar Aussie and FD actually are.

Also this is a stupid semantic argument. You are both right, and both wrong. He was gaoled for contempt of court because he refused to desist from denying the holocaust. Its not one or the other, its both. Semantically, 'contempt of court' can be cited as the "real" reason without attributing any blame to his original act (denying the holocaust), but it doesn't pass the common sense test. Similarly, it is wrong to say he was only gaoled for the act of denying the holocaust without acknowledging contempt of court in and of itself a sufficient reason for incarceration (irrespective of the origin of the contempt).

Its just silly semantics, and everyone should all just settle for "he was gaoled for contempt of court - which came about because of his refusal to desist from denying the holocaust". Since while ever FD insists on leaving out 'contempt of court' in his interpretation of the reason he was gaoled, Aussie will simply cite the court transcript referring to the contempt - ad infinitum till the cows come home.

Ah, but that is what I said, and it was ignored by FD:

Quote:

There you go yet again with deceptive language. He was jailed for Contempt of Court. His contempt was defiance of a Court Order. The Court Order was that he cease distributing holocaust denial material. He then distributed that material. Ergo, he was not jailed for denying the holocaust.

I agree the distinction is a fine one, but it is nonetheless a distinction.

John Smith had a rather stupid suggestion that we respond by trying to get rid of contempt of court legislation rather than 18c (again, see the opening post for quotes)

simply highlighting how stupid your idea is. You want to ban 18c because it resulted in someone going to jail who you believe shouldn't have. Continue that logic through to other laws and you'll see how stupid that train of thought is.

Why would you gaol a loon? A Jewish loon at that. The man has a right to say he doesn't believe history. We don't gaol IITL for moon-landing denial, we see him for what he is.

I have no idea as to Toben's religion. As for gaoling a loon, it is obvious he has shown repeated contempt for the court, as the court is limited in the punishments it can hand out, gaoling is one that would teach him a lesson?

Jewish is both a people and a religion. Toben is a Jewish name.

Who cares? He was found to be in contempt of a court decision which was held against him. He suffered the correct penalty according to the court. If he had not been so contemptuous of the court, he wouldn't have been imprisoned. QED.

A law should not be in place that tells you what you should think and talk about.

Really? Yet there are many such laws, Setlanta. Have you forgotten Libel, Slander, Blasphemy and other similar laws? They all exist and they state what you can talk about. No law can determine what you think about though. Toben is free to think what he likes. He can even discuss it privately. What he isn't allowed to do is state his anti-Holocaust lies in public.

Only two instances can a person be imprisoned under the Racial Discrimination Act

Quote:

27(2)

(a) refuse to employ another person; or

(b) dismiss, or threaten to dismiss, another person from the other person’s employment; or

(c) prejudice, or threaten to prejudice, another person in the other person’s employment; or

(d) intimidate or coerce, or impose any pecuniary or other penalty upon, another person;

by reason that the other person:

(e) has made, or proposes to make, a complaint under this Act or the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986; or

(f) has furnished, or proposes to furnish, any information or documents to a person exercising or performing any powers or functions under this Act or the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986; or

(g) has attended, or proposes to attend, a conference held under this Act or the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986.

Penalty for an offence against subsection (2):

(a) in the case of a natural person—25 penalty units or imprisonment for 3 months, or both

Quote:

27F

A person who is, or has at any time been, the Commissioner, a member of the Commission or a member of the staff assisting the Commission or is, or has at any time been, authorised to perform or exercise any function or power of the Commission or the Commissioner or any function or power on behalf of the Commission or the Commissioner, being a function or power conferred on the Commission or on the Commissioner under this Act, shall not, either directly or indirectly:

(a) make a record of, or divulge or communicate to any person, any information relating to the affairs of another person acquired by the first‑mentioned person by reason of that person’s office or employment under or for the purpose of this Act or by reason of that person being or having been so authorised;

or

(b) make use of any such information as is mentioned in paragraph (a); or

(c) produce to any person a document relating to the affairs of another person furnished for the purposes of this Act.

Penalty: 50 penalty units or imprisonment for 1 year, or both.

Toben however was given a specific instruction by the court to stop what he was doing. He decided to ignore that directive and was locked up. A clear case of contempt of court. Toben unreservedly apologised for his breaches of court orders and said he would not withdraw his apology as he had in the past.

It wasn't the first time he was locked up. In 1998 he was imprisoned for denying the Holocaust but that happened in Germany and they kinda don't like it when you say it didn't happen. Still a sensitive subject for them.

Only two instances can a person be imprisoned under the Racial Discrimination Act

Quote:

27(2)

(a) refuse to employ another person; or

(b) dismiss, or threaten to dismiss, another person from the other person’s employment; or

(c) prejudice, or threaten to prejudice, another person in the other person’s employment; or

(d) intimidate or coerce, or impose any pecuniary or other penalty upon, another person;

by reason that the other person:

(e) has made, or proposes to make, a complaint under this Act or the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986; or

(f) has furnished, or proposes to furnish, any information or documents to a person exercising or performing any powers or functions under this Act or the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986; or

(g) has attended, or proposes to attend, a conference held under this Act or the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986.

Penalty for an offence against subsection (2):

(a) in the case of a natural person—25 penalty units or imprisonment for 3 months, or both

Quote:

27F

A person who is, or has at any time been, the Commissioner, a member of the Commission or a member of the staff assisting the Commission or is, or has at any time been, authorised to perform or exercise any function or power of the Commission or the Commissioner or any function or power on behalf of the Commission or the Commissioner, being a function or power conferred on the Commission or on the Commissioner under this Act, shall not, either directly or indirectly:

(a) make a record of, or divulge or communicate to any person, any information relating to the affairs of another person acquired by the first‑mentioned person by reason of that person’s office or employment under or for the purpose of this Act or by reason of that person being or having been so authorised;

or

(b) make use of any such information as is mentioned in paragraph (a); or

(c) produce to any person a document relating to the affairs of another person furnished for the purposes of this Act.

Penalty: 50 penalty units or imprisonment for 1 year, or both.

Toben however was given a specific instruction by the court to stop what he was doing. He decided to ignore that directive and was locked up. A clear case of contempt of court. Toben unreservedly apologised for his breaches of court orders and said he would not withdraw his apology as he had in the past.

It wasn't the first time he was locked up. In 1998 he was imprisoned for denying the Holocaust but that happened in Germany and they kinda don't like it when you say it didn't happen. Still a sensitive subject for them.

Part of Germany's response to Nazism is to fully face it and teach about it in schools. No denial, no soft-pedalling. And you have to agree it has worked. But whether or not you think the law is right, it IS the law there about denial of the Holocaust just as there are laws in Thailand about insulting the King (which is very easy to do) or offending Islam in muslim countries (also easy to do). You obey them or pay the price.

Only two instances can a person be imprisoned under the Racial Discrimination Act

Quote:

27(2)

(a) refuse to employ another person; or

(b) dismiss, or threaten to dismiss, another person from the other person’s employment; or

(c) prejudice, or threaten to prejudice, another person in the other person’s employment; or

(d) intimidate or coerce, or impose any pecuniary or other penalty upon, another person;

by reason that the other person:

(e) has made, or proposes to make, a complaint under this Act or the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986; or

(f) has furnished, or proposes to furnish, any information or documents to a person exercising or performing any powers or functions under this Act or the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986; or

(g) has attended, or proposes to attend, a conference held under this Act or the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986.

Penalty for an offence against subsection (2):

(a) in the case of a natural person—25 penalty units or imprisonment for 3 months, or both

Quote:

27F

A person who is, or has at any time been, the Commissioner, a member of the Commission or a member of the staff assisting the Commission or is, or has at any time been, authorised to perform or exercise any function or power of the Commission or the Commissioner or any function or power on behalf of the Commission or the Commissioner, being a function or power conferred on the Commission or on the Commissioner under this Act, shall not, either directly or indirectly:

(a) make a record of, or divulge or communicate to any person, any information relating to the affairs of another person acquired by the first‑mentioned person by reason of that person’s office or employment under or for the purpose of this Act or by reason of that person being or having been so authorised;

or

(b) make use of any such information as is mentioned in paragraph (a); or

(c) produce to any person a document relating to the affairs of another person furnished for the purposes of this Act.

Penalty: 50 penalty units or imprisonment for 1 year, or both.

Toben however was given a specific instruction by the court to stop what he was doing. He decided to ignore that directive and was locked up. A clear case of contempt of court. Toben unreservedly apologised for his breaches of court orders and said he would not withdraw his apology as he had in the past.

It wasn't the first time he was locked up. In 1998 he was imprisoned for denying the Holocaust but that happened in Germany and they kinda don't like it when you say it didn't happen. Still a sensitive subject for them.

Part of Germany's response to Nazism is to fully face it and teach about it in schools. No denial, no soft-pedalling. And you have to agree it has worked. But whether or not you think the law is right, it IS the law there about denial of the Holocaust just as there are laws in Thailand about insulting the King (which is very easy to do) or offending Islam in muslim countries (also easy to do). You obey them or pay the price.

Right to Speak does not preclude consequences.

Absolutely correct the right of free speech does not mean the right to freedom from consequence.

You are free to say what you want but be prepared to be held accountable for what you say.

Only two instances can a person be imprisoned under the Racial Discrimination Act

Quote:

27(2)

(a) refuse to employ another person; or

(b) dismiss, or threaten to dismiss, another person from the other person’s employment; or

(c) prejudice, or threaten to prejudice, another person in the other person’s employment; or

(d) intimidate or coerce, or impose any pecuniary or other penalty upon, another person;

by reason that the other person:

(e) has made, or proposes to make, a complaint under this Act or the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986; or

(f) has furnished, or proposes to furnish, any information or documents to a person exercising or performing any powers or functions under this Act or the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986; or

(g) has attended, or proposes to attend, a conference held under this Act or the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986.

Penalty for an offence against subsection (2):

(a) in the case of a natural person—25 penalty units or imprisonment for 3 months, or both

Quote:

27F

A person who is, or has at any time been, the Commissioner, a member of the Commission or a member of the staff assisting the Commission or is, or has at any time been, authorised to perform or exercise any function or power of the Commission or the Commissioner or any function or power on behalf of the Commission or the Commissioner, being a function or power conferred on the Commission or on the Commissioner under this Act, shall not, either directly or indirectly:

(a) make a record of, or divulge or communicate to any person, any information relating to the affairs of another person acquired by the first‑mentioned person by reason of that person’s office or employment under or for the purpose of this Act or by reason of that person being or having been so authorised;

or

(b) make use of any such information as is mentioned in paragraph (a); or

(c) produce to any person a document relating to the affairs of another person furnished for the purposes of this Act.

Penalty: 50 penalty units or imprisonment for 1 year, or both.

Toben however was given a specific instruction by the court to stop what he was doing. He decided to ignore that directive and was locked up. A clear case of contempt of court. Toben unreservedly apologised for his breaches of court orders and said he would not withdraw his apology as he had in the past.

It wasn't the first time he was locked up. In 1998 he was imprisoned for denying the Holocaust but that happened in Germany and they kinda don't like it when you say it didn't happen. Still a sensitive subject for them.

Part of Germany's response to Nazism is to fully face it and teach about it in schools. No denial, no soft-pedalling. And you have to agree it has worked. But whether or not you think the law is right, it IS the law there about denial of the Holocaust just as there are laws in Thailand about insulting the King (which is very easy to do) or offending Islam in muslim countries (also easy to do). You obey them or pay the price.

Right to Speak does not preclude consequences.

Absolutely correct the right of free speech does not mean the right to freedom from consequence.

You are free to say what you want but be prepared to be held accountable for what you say.

It is a concept many can't grasp.

It is part of the modern aversion to Responsibility. Each Right comes with a matching Responsibility. Many are very loud on the former but silent on the latter.

technically he wasn't - he was gaoled for contempt of court. See how this game is played FD? I could play this till Kingdom come if I really want to - as indeed Aussie seems determined to do. Aussie of course is ignoring common sense - he absolutely was gaoled as a result of him denying the holocaust, even if you can make the semantic argument that he wasn't gaoled for denying the holocaust. Thats where Aussie is coming from - silly semantics.

technically he wasn't - he was gaoled for contempt of court. See how this game is played FD? I could play this till Kingdom come if I really want to - as indeed Aussie seems determined to do. Aussie of course is ignoring common sense - he absolutely was gaoled as a result of him denying the holocaust, even if you can make the semantic argument that he wasn't gaoled for denying the holocaust. Thats where Aussie is coming from - silly semantics.

Yet I posted this on the original Thread:

Quote:

There you go yet again with deceptive language. He was jailed for Contempt of Court. His contempt was defiance of a Court Order. The Court Order was that he cease distributing holocaust denial material. He then distributed that material. Ergo, he was not jailed for denying the holocaust

technically he wasn't - he was gaoled for contempt of court. See how this game is played FD? I could play this till Kingdom come if I really want to - as indeed Aussie seems determined to do. Aussie of course is ignoring common sense - he absolutely was gaoled as a result of him denying the holocaust, even if you can make the semantic argument that he wasn't gaoled for denying the holocaust. Thats where Aussie is coming from - silly semantics.

Sounds like peccahead and his pedantry super-powers, pretending that two identical words are not and that this argument is not in effect, exactly the same from both people.

technically he wasn't - he was gaoled for contempt of court. See how this game is played FD? I could play this till Kingdom come if I really want to - as indeed Aussie seems determined to do. Aussie of course is ignoring common sense - he absolutely was gaoled as a result of him denying the holocaust, even if you can make the semantic argument that he wasn't gaoled for denying the holocaust. Thats where Aussie is coming from - silly semantics.

What about the conclusion that 18c does not infringe on freedom of speech because it was not the cause of his jailing? Is that still semantics Gandalf?

What about insisting that it is a "blatant lie of the most scurrilous kind" to suggest Toben was jailed for denying the holocaust? Still technically correct? Are you willing to defend what Aussie actually said, or are you simply determined to rescue the idiocy of a fellow apologist with your "both wrong and both right" nonsense?

What about insisting that it is a "blatant lie of the most scurrilous kind" to suggest Toben was jailed for denying the holocaust? Still technically correct?

I don't want Gandalf to get caught up in this. Those are my words, not his, and it is me who should account for them, not him.

What I said was an accurate description at the time I used them in the context I used them. As is ever your want, you now take them out of context, place them in isolation or in a different context, and laughingly point your haughty finger.